JOB OPPORTUNITIES AT DRAGONSCROLL.COM
Dragonscroll
is looking for gamers in the Atlanta area who are interested in working
for a growing online gaming company. Positions are currently available
in customer service, warehouse, and data entry, and some cross-over
between positions is expected. All applicants should have their own
transportation. Hours and schedules are flexible and some weekend and
early evening shifts are available. All available positions start
between $7 and $8 per hour and include a healthy employee discount.
Ideal applicants are role playing gamers, card gamers, war gamers, or
anime buffs with knowledge of multiple games and/or genres, or are Larry
Elmore. Customer Service applicants must be friendly, personable, and
know exactly how Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition is better than 2nd
Edition. Warehouse applicants should have a relatively wide knowledge
of gaming companies and know whether "Sisters of Battle" is a Games
Workshop miniature or a Battletech novel. Data Entry applicants should
have basic computer skills (preferably including scanner use), be
detail-oriented, and know whether Ral Partha goes under "Miniatures" or
"Anime". We are willing to train all required skills for the right
applicants.
For more information or to arrange an interview, please e-mail
Ja...@Dragonscroll.com or call 770-729-5695.
Gamers who do not enjoy Cheapass Games need not apply.
--
Dragonscroll is your online source for games at 20-50% off!
http://www.dragonscroll.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
st3ph3nm
> We are willing to train all required skills for the right
> applicants.
Hmmm... Seems to me that the last thing this world needs is another
games distributor run by a pack of gamer nerds with no idea of customer
service, business practices, or logistics. Please, for your business's
sake, hire some people who know nothing about games, but know a lot
about running a business, and servicing customers. Product knowledge
they can learn...
Cheers,
Steve
(an ex gamestore employee, ex sales manager, and current Recruitment &
Human Resources Consultant.)
Bart Lidofsky
This is in addition to Steve's comments.
The #1 cause of failure of small businesses is
undercapitalization. All too often, an undercapitalized business will try
to cut corners in such a way as to cut their own throats. This is
especially true if they achieve some early success, and have to expand
prematurely to keep up, before they have the actual income to justify
it. I am not sure if this was the case with Draonscroll, but I'd say the
odds are in favor of it.
Bart Lidofsky
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"st3ph3nm" <st3p...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tj319$qnq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > We are willing to train all required skills for the right
> > applicants.
>
> Hmmm... Seems to me that the last thing this world needs is another
> games distributor run by a pack of gamer nerds with no idea of customer
> service, business practices, or logistics. Please, for your business's
> sake, hire some people who know nothing about games, but know a lot
> about running a business, and servicing customers. Product knowledge
> they can learn...
And to that I'd reverse...
Hmmm... Seems to me that the last thing this world needs is another
games distributor run by a pack of business majors with no idea of what a PC
is, let alone a NPC, or even just what a RPG actually is. Please, for your
business's sake, hire some people who know a LOT about games, but know
something about running a business and customer service. How to fill out an
order they can learn...
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
PS: My reason is selfeshness; I can't tell you how many times I've called up
a hobby store and asked "Do you have an old RPG by the name of Arcanum? It
was by Bard Games" ...only to get the reply "Arcanum? What? Is that some new
kind of boardgame?" ...wherein I inform them..."Uh, no, it's an RPG. A role
playing game." ...to which their knowledge of gaming really comes through
..."Oh, no. We don't sell computer games." Yeah...like I actually *trust*
them to know what I'm actually ordering. They may have business degrees,
but they don't have the slightest clue what they are selling. That's just
pathetic. Give me a badly run gameing store where the people actually know
what I'm talking about any day of the week.
Lance Dyas
cool game concept and design.. their graphic artist was a talented amateur...
(he either
never heard of a match print or didnt know if the print doesnt match you dont
have
to pay for it and if they dont cooperate you go to a different printer) He
screwed up royally on their first run around and effectively ruined it. Later
problems
included making promises they couldnt keep and multi-year long gap times between
product.
*****************************************************************
Dragonlord Garthans - Decision Driven Gaming - Role Play center
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/lancelot/roleplay
Want custom art for your RPG characters?
*****************************************************************
James Wallis
the Arch-Mage <pm...@home.com> writes
>> games distributor run by a pack of gamer nerds with no idea of customer
>> service, business practices, or logistics. Please, for your business's
>> sake, hire some people who know nothing about games, but know a lot
>> about running a business, and servicing customers. Product knowledge
>> they can learn...
> Hmmm... Seems to me that the last thing this world needs is another
>games distributor run by a pack of business majors with no idea of what a PC
>is, let alone a NPC, or even just what a RPG actually is.
Speaking as a publisher, any good distributor will employ staff with a
balanced knowledge of both business and gaming. Not every member of
staff needs to know both, but some do -- particularly the ones at the
front end, who will have to deal with customers.
My reasons for this are selfish too. A distributor who knows games but
not business will almost certainly go bust, probably owing us money.
Likewise for a distributor who knows business but not games.
Either way, we've stopped trading with a number of distributors who seem
to be too heavily weighted one way or the other -- we've lost too much
money in the past dealing with companies that don't know their Ars
Magica from their Escape from Elba.
--
James Wallis
Director of Hogshead Publishing Ltd (ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
Posting this from his home address (ja...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk)
Hogshead Publishing supports DRAGONMEET 2000 http://www.dragonmeet.com
Bigfutrpga
with average 20 years experience each (with the exception of our Company
Secreatry/Accountant/Chief Editor who is a non-gamer).
All of us also come from a commercial financial background having worked for
Multinational or state run business. As a Credit Manager who worked in Export
for 8 years (including running the documentation/shipping department) I can
handle cash flow etc. Sue who is the non-gamer ensures that rules are
clarified from her perspective (we understand the rules but what about a
newbie).
You have to have a balance to survive.
Regards
Steve Turner MICM
Managing Director
Brittannia Game Designs Ltd
http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk
Bryan J. Maloney
<3A218ACE...@dyasdesigns.com>:
>A game made by gamers.. was... Highlander the Collectible Trading Card
A game made by gamers.. was...
D&D
GURPS
Palladium
RuneQuest
Hero Wars
Champions
Magic: The Gathering
You really should reduce your ignorance before sounding off.
Bryan J. Maloney
<clD$vRAdpa...@erstwhile.demon.co.uk>:
>Speaking as a publisher, any good distributor will employ staff with a
>balanced knowledge of both business and gaming. Not every member of
>staff needs to know both, but some do -- particularly the ones at the
>front end, who will have to deal with customers.
It's a lot like the controversies in biology, actually. The damnable MBAs keep
pushing to get all scientists out of any position wherein they can make any
decisions. I've gotten to see firsthand what happens when MBAs run a
scientific outfit--innovation and real science stop dead. I've gotten to see
what happens when biologists run a corporation--there are reasons why biotech
startups are so prone to going tits up.
>to be too heavily weighted one way or the other -- we've lost too much
>money in the past dealing with companies that don't know their Ars
>Magica from their Escape from Elba.
Try explaining just WHY it is that the $40k centrifuge really DOES have to be
purchased instead of the $10k centrifuge to somebody who knows nothing about
biology.
Chris Williams
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:8vtqi8$d9r$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
tut tut Brian... play nice
Michael T. Richter
news:8vtqi8$d9r$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> A game made by gamers.. was...
> D&D
> GURPS
> Palladium
> RuneQuest
Dead.
> Hero Wars
Quite possibly still-born.
> Champions
Dead. Alive. Dead. Alive. Dead. Shall we just call it a zombie and
leave it at that?
> Magic: The Gathering
> You really should reduce your ignorance before sounding off.
From your list of games you presumably consider successful, we have one
that's definitely dead, one that may as well be and one that will likely die
soon given the reviews. That isn't exactly impressive given that you were
in a position to proof-text and choose only the pieces of evidence which
supported your argument. If we were to list all games made by gamers, just
how successful would gamer-created companies be?
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>dra...@dyasdesigns.com (Lance Dyas) wrote in
><3A218ACE...@dyasdesigns.com>:
>
>>A game made by gamers.. was... Highlander the Collectible Trading Card
>
>A game made by gamers.. was...
>
>D&D
>GURPS
>Palladium
>RuneQuest
>Hero Wars
>Champions
>Magic: The Gathering
Traveller
Rolemaster
C&S...
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Michael T. Richter
news:3a22caa2...@news.paradise.net.nz...
>> A game made by gamers.. was...
[snip]
> Traveller
> Rolemaster
> C&S...
To name two more dead games and one that's coughing up blood....
Rupert Boleyn
C&S has just had its 4th edition release, and seems to be doing OK, if
not in the big time.
Rolemaster is probably history, true, but Traveller's doing fine as
part of the GURPS thing. Whether this counts as survival or not is
another matter though.
Michael T. Richter
>>> Traveller
>>> Rolemaster
>>> C&S...
>> To name two more dead games and one that's coughing up blood....
> C&S has just had its 4th edition release, and seems to be doing
> OK, if not in the big time.
I'm an old C&S fan from back in the heady days of the newly-released 2nd
edition. (Yes, I know that there are fans even older than I am.) I like
C&S and I even like the 3rd edition stuff that's come out to a large extent.
And I still say that C&S is coughing up blood.
Let's face it -- I can't walk into *ANY* game store *ANYWHERE* within a
six-hour drive of me (that includes Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa) and buy
C&S. The *ONLY* places I can buy it from are on-line. Even Fandom II --
arguably the best game store in Canada and certainly the best in Ontario --
can't seem to get C&S in stock. That puts C&S firmly into the fourth world
publishing ventures.
So, even as much as I like C&S, I'm under no illusions: it is not a healthy
publishing venture (and never has been at the best of times). This isn't a
criticism of the fine folk who put out the materials for it. It's a
realistic look at its actual status in gaming.
> Rolemaster is probably history, true, but Traveller's doing fine
> as part of the GURPS thing. Whether this counts as survival or not
> is another matter though.
Traveller the game is dead. Further it has died at least three times.
Traveller the setting is alive by all appearances.
Terry Austin
"Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:Z1CU5.119455$n9.24...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
Yeah, we all know the entire gaming industry is driven by
the Canadian market, cuz otherwise the Richterbot's opinions
would be meaningless drivel.
Heh.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"ed" <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:28v52t81aq019dd2u...@4ax.com...
> The noble deat...@fnord.io.com (Deathdog The Assassin) spake on the day
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:06:02 GMT, in rec.games.frp.industry
> deat...@fnord.io.com (Deathdog The Assassin) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:23:37 GMT, Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >>So, even as much as I like C&S, I'm under no illusions: it is not a
healthy
> >>publishing venture (and never has been at the best of times). This
isn't a
> >>criticism of the fine folk who put out the materials for it. It's a
> >>realistic look at its actual status in gaming.
> >
> >usenet. As much as I too like C&S, I don't think it will ever be as
> >mainstream as any of the more popular rpgs. There is just too steep a
> >learning curve for most gamers...try understanding the FES rules at first
> >reading, or pro-rating a Necromancer.
>
> Much as I love 2nd ed, with 4th ed something a lot nicer has happened,
> and this is a lot easier.
>
> >Impossible. On the flip-side, it has
> >a very unique flavor that is hard to imitate. C&S lends itself to
> >"realistic fantasy", whereas DnD is defintely more bad-fantasy-novel
> >style. And I like DnD 3rd edition, too...but they are VERY different
> >games, even if they are similar on the surface.
> >
> >Hopefully some of the gamers out there will decide that it couldn't hurt
> >to get another fantasy game on their shelves. Which in turn will let C&S
> >4th edition survive yet another decade or two.
>
> And if you want to try before you buy, you can soon have a look at C&S
> Essence, the 4 page flavour of C&S text from BGD, using a d20!!
>
Actually, Brad will be seeing the full rules about 3 days after
I do, having a standing order for them. He's one of Us,
believe it or not. And a fairly loyal one, at that.
Terry Austin
Deathdog The Assassin
>
>So, even as much as I like C&S, I'm under no illusions: it is not a healthy
>publishing venture (and never has been at the best of times). This isn't a
>criticism of the fine folk who put out the materials for it. It's a
>realistic look at its actual status in gaming.
This is about the most intelligent thing I've ever heard MTR ever say on
usenet. As much as I too like C&S, I don't think it will ever be as
mainstream as any of the more popular rpgs. There is just too steep a
learning curve for most gamers...try understanding the FES rules at first
reading, or pro-rating a Necromancer. Impossible. On the flip-side, it has
a very unique flavor that is hard to imitate. C&S lends itself to
"realistic fantasy", whereas DnD is defintely more bad-fantasy-novel
style. And I like DnD 3rd edition, too...but they are VERY different
games, even if they are similar on the surface.
Hopefully some of the gamers out there will decide that it couldn't hurt
to get another fantasy game on their shelves. Which in turn will let C&S
4th edition survive yet another decade or two.
--
Brad Everman aka Deathdog
http://www.deathdog.com, http://www.cyberjackass.com
"94% of the women in America are beautiful and the rest
hang out around here."
ed
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:06:02 GMT, in rec.games.frp.industry
deat...@fnord.io.com (Deathdog The Assassin) wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:23:37 GMT, Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>>
>>So, even as much as I like C&S, I'm under no illusions: it is not a healthy
>>publishing venture (and never has been at the best of times). This isn't a
>>criticism of the fine folk who put out the materials for it. It's a
>>realistic look at its actual status in gaming.
>
>This is about the most intelligent thing I've ever heard MTR ever say on
>usenet. As much as I too like C&S, I don't think it will ever be as
>mainstream as any of the more popular rpgs. There is just too steep a
>learning curve for most gamers...try understanding the FES rules at first
>reading, or pro-rating a Necromancer.
Much as I love 2nd ed, with 4th ed something a lot nicer has happened,
and this is a lot easier.
>Impossible. On the flip-side, it has
>a very unique flavor that is hard to imitate. C&S lends itself to
>"realistic fantasy", whereas DnD is defintely more bad-fantasy-novel
>style. And I like DnD 3rd edition, too...but they are VERY different
>games, even if they are similar on the surface.
>
>Hopefully some of the gamers out there will decide that it couldn't hurt
>to get another fantasy game on their shelves. Which in turn will let C&S
>4th edition survive yet another decade or two.
And if you want to try before you buy, you can soon have a look at C&S
Essence, the 4 page flavour of C&S text from BGD, using a d20!!
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk | Dragons Rescued | _////
http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/ | Maidens Slain | o_/o ///
For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGs, | Quests P.O.A. | __\ ///__
Science-Fiction and other stuff | | <*>
st3ph3nm
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
> Hiya.
Hi yourself. 8^)
> Give me a badly run gameing store where the people actually know
> what I'm talking about any day of the week.
>
Well, for a start, we're talking about a distributor, here, so I
imagine their customer base is going to be gaming stores. Having
worked at a gaming store (heh, haven't we all?) there's nothing more
frustrating than having to deal with suppliers who can't do simple
maths.
Eg: You have the sole import/distribution rights for TSR. The major
game retailer in a capital city has let you know that they have 10
customers who have ordered AD&D DMG's. So when you order your next
shipment from the US, how many copies do you order?
A. 6 - that'll keep 'em happy until next order
B. 20+ - If they've got 10 ordered, chances are they'll need another 5
or 6 to keep them going, and that's just *one* retailer, in *one* city.
C. Throw a d12 and order that amount.
Me, I'd be thinking B. Our suppliers, however, decided on either A. or
C.
I'm selfish too. I'd like to support the industry by being able to buy
stuff. There's more to running a business than product knowledge.
Deathdog The Assassin
>>
>Actually, Brad will be seeing the full rules about 3 days after
>I do, having a standing order for them. He's one of Us,
>believe it or not. And a fairly loyal one, at that.
Loyal in the extreme, although not as vocal as some of you (Terry & ed
spring to mind). Unfortunately, being loyal has nothing to do with hordes
of gamers converting to C&S. From what ed has shown me though, the 4th
edition should be pretty kick ass.
Can't wait to see it.
Bigfutrpga
accounts. They show a threefold increase in turnover and a loss turned around
into a profit. In fact Dun and Bradstreet now give us a positive credit
rating.
We are approaching our third years trading without a bank overdraft and without
any other bank financing.
Are there any other game companies able to make that claim.
For anyone wishing to see our accounts they are available from Companies House
in Cardiff, Wales. They are now part of the Uk's public records.
Regards
Steve Turner MICM
Managing Director
Brittannia Game Designs Ltd
"A company run by gamers who are also Accountants"
The Grouchybeast
> Hopefully some of the gamers out there will decide that it couldn't hurt
> to get another fantasy game on their shelves. Which in turn will let C&S
> 4th edition survive yet another decade or two.
I had a look through the first 4th ed core book at Dragonmeet.
(Unfortunately, the other two books hadn't made it from the printers
yet.) I have to say I was put off by the price. Had it been cheaper I
would have bought a copy there and then but as it is I'm going to wait
for some reviews.
love
Anna
--
I see you standing there, far out along the way,
I want to touch you but, the night becomes the day.
I count the words that I am never going to say,
And I see you, in midnight blue. (ELO - Midnight Blue)
Bigfutrpga
The three books are available seperately for £11.95 ($19.95) each with the
screen at £5.95 ($9.95).
The Deluxe pack is priced at £24.95 ($39.95) and includes all three books with
the screen as a book wrap.
Quite a few people ordered the pack at £24.95 with books 2 and 3 being posted
to them free of charge when they arrive back from the printers.
We also included £2.00 vouchers in the Dragonmeet goody bags but no -one seemed
to notice these. (Profantasy had done the same.)
Regards
Steve
James Wallis
<bigfu...@aol.com> writes
>We are approaching our third years trading without a bank overdraft and without
>any other bank financing.
>
>Are there any other game companies able to make that claim.
I can't speak for any other companies but both Hogshead and Gameforce
are doing very nicely, thank you. Hogshead hasn't had an overdraft since
early 1996; Gameforce has never had one and doesn't intend to start.
Doug Berry
"Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com>, wrote thusly:
>Traveller the game is dead. Further it has died at least three times.
>Traveller the setting is alive by all appearances.
Michael predicted that GURPS Traveller would be a failure. He
was wrong. I don't know what he has against the game, but he is
blind when it comes to it.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"We are GURPS. You will be assimilated. We will add
your distinctive setting and background to our own. |
Resistance is futile."
Michael T. Richter
news:bpk72t4d0s9687da7...@4ax.com...
>> Traveller the game is dead. Further it has died at least
>> three times. Traveller the setting is alive by all appearances.
> Michael predicted that GURPS Traveller would be a failure. He
> was wrong. I don't know what he has against the game, but he is
> blind when it comes to it.
Can you not read, Doug?
Traveller THE GAME [emphasis mine] is dead. Evidence? There is no
Traveller game out there. The last version -- T4 -- sucked so badly that
even you decided to hate it in the end. T5 is nowhere to be seen.
Traveller THE SETTING [emphasis mine] is alive. Evidence? GURPS Traveller
is selling well. It is still being published. But GURPS isn't a Traveller
game. GURPS Traveller is the GURPS game attached to the Traveller setting.
Speaking of blind spots, maybe you should have that bizarre cross-circuit in
your brain checked out. You seem to lose all literacy when you read
something even remotely negative about Traveller.
James Nicoll
>news:bpk72t4d0s9687da7...@4ax.com...
>>> Traveller the game is dead. Further it has died at least
>>> three times. Traveller the setting is alive by all appearances.
>
>> Michael predicted that GURPS Traveller would be a failure. He
>> was wrong. I don't know what he has against the game, but he is
>> blind when it comes to it.
>
>Can you not read, Doug?
>
>Traveller THE GAME [emphasis mine] is dead. Evidence? There is no
>Traveller game out there. The last version -- T4 -- sucked so badly that
>even you decided to hate it in the end. T5 is nowhere to be seen.
>
for me, selling steadily.
--
My Pledge: No more than 2 OT posts to rasfw a day. No replying
to trolls and idiots. Start five good on topic threads a day to drown
out the crap. Drink more coffee.
Michael T. Richter
news:900v6n$gfh$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
>> Traveller THE GAME [emphasis mine] is dead. Evidence? There
>> is no Traveller game out there. The last version -- T4 --
>> sucked so badly that even you decided to hate it in the end.
>> T5 is nowhere to be seen.
> However, Classic Traveller is back in print and at least
> for me, selling steadily.
I keep hearing about these reprints, but haven't yet seen them in a store
(online or otherwise). Who actually stocks these things?
I can understand my local gaming purveyor not stocking these. They got
burned very badly by T4 and don't want anything to do with Traveller at all
anymore. But my usual Toronto haunts don't have them and neither do my
usual 'net haunts. Where are these available (preferably somewhere I can
actually look at things like the quality of the books, etc.)?
ed
day of Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:08:31 +0000:
>Deathdog The Assassin wrote:
>
>> Hopefully some of the gamers out there will decide that it couldn't hurt
>> to get another fantasy game on their shelves. Which in turn will let C&S
>> 4th edition survive yet another decade or two.
>
>I had a look through the first 4th ed core book at Dragonmeet.
>(Unfortunately, the other two books hadn't made it from the printers
>yet.) I have to say I was put off by the price. Had it been cheaper I
>would have bought a copy there and then but as it is I'm going to wait
>for some reviews.
What about the price? Did you feel that 11.95 was too much for the page
count/text size?
Would £24.95 for the three books plus the GM's screen be more tempting?
ed
day of Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:08:31 +0000:
>Deathdog The Assassin wrote:
>
>> Hopefully some of the gamers out there will decide that it couldn't hurt
>> to get another fantasy game on their shelves. Which in turn will let C&S
>> 4th edition survive yet another decade or two.
>
>I had a look through the first 4th ed core book at Dragonmeet.
>(Unfortunately, the other two books hadn't made it from the printers
>yet.) I have to say I was put off by the price. Had it been cheaper I
>would have bought a copy there and then but as it is I'm going to wait
>for some reviews.
Can I point out that for your money you get 104 pages of 8 point text
with little interior art, so that there is a lot of stuff in there.
Steve, supply a word count.
James Nicoll
>(online or otherwise). Who actually stocks these things?
>
but may not realise it.
Bradd W. Szonye
>The noble The Grouchybeast <thegrou...@hotmail.com> spake on the
>day of Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:08:31 +0000:
>
>>Deathdog The Assassin wrote:
>>
>>> to get another fantasy game on their shelves. Which in turn will let C&S
>>> 4th edition survive yet another decade or two.
>>
>>(Unfortunately, the other two books hadn't made it from the printers
>>yet.) I have to say I was put off by the price. Had it been cheaper I
>>would have bought a copy there and then but as it is I'm going to wait
>>for some reviews.
>
>Can I point out that for your money you get 104 pages of 8 point text
>with little interior art, so that there is a lot of stuff in there.
Ack! My gut reaction to that is that it sounds like some *horrible*
typography. Eight-point fonts are too small for running text. "Little
interior art" implies a lack of whitespace, which means a dense and
difficult-to-read book.
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL Phone: 408-447-4832
ed
Nov 2000 00:05:08 GMT:
>>Can I point out that for your money you get 104 pages of 8 point text
>>with little interior art, so that there is a lot of stuff in there.
>
>Ack! My gut reaction to that is that it sounds like some *horrible*
>typography.
I suggest that you take something nice and soothing for your gut because
it works quite effectively.
> Eight-point fonts are too small for running text.
I can wave C&S 1 at you which uses 6 point or my own handout which uses
7.5.
> "Little
>interior art" implies a lack of whitespace, which means a dense and
>difficult-to-read book.
But not in this case.
Everything is a balance. Make the text bigger you increase page count.
Increase page count you have to go to Perfect bound, which increases
your production costs and you either have to reduce your per unit
profits or chance pricing yourself out of the market, which brings us
back to where we started.
How ever, BGD do a nice, simple, uncluttered layout. You want to see an
example, go to http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/ hit the download button
and check out the Urtish language PDF download. If you don't want to
sully yourself with the rest of the website then you an grab the thing
direct at http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/download/urtish.pdf
The Grouchybeast
> The noble The Grouchybeast <thegrou...@hotmail.com> spake on the
> day of Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:08:31 +0000:
> >I had a look through the first 4th ed core book at Dragonmeet.
> >(Unfortunately, the other two books hadn't made it from the printers
> >yet.) I have to say I was put off by the price. Had it been cheaper I
> >would have bought a copy there and then but as it is I'm going to wait
> >for some reviews.
>
> What about the price? Did you feel that 11.95 was too much for the page
> count/text size?
It came to £36 for the 3 core rules books. To shell out that amount of
money, I'd need to be quite confident I was going to either a) want to
play the game or b) enjoy reading the book as a book. Since only one of
the books was available to look through, and I hadn't seen any reviews,
I decided to wait. I was also somewhat put off by the binding.
In the end I went down to the other end of the hall and bought the 3 D&D
3ed core books and an SLA Industries book.
> Would £24.95 for the three books plus the GM's screen be more tempting?
Ah, I didn't notice that on the stand. For that I might have picked it
up, if the other rulebooks had been available to look through.
Bigfutrpga
program had a full page advert for C&S the Rebirth. It stated that the deluxe
pack had all four items for £24.95 and the prices for the other books were
listed.
Regards
Steve
(Was this worthwhile advertising????) :-)
Doug Berry
"Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com>, wrote thusly:
>"James Nicoll" <jam...@nyquist.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>I keep hearing about these reprints, but haven't yet seen them in a store
>(online or otherwise). Who actually stocks these things?
http://members.aol.com/Traveller/
All my local game stores stock, and sell, the reprints. Once
again Michael: just because something does not appear in your
neck of the woods, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
>I can understand my local gaming purveyor not stocking these. They got
>burned very badly by T4 and don't want anything to do with Traveller at all
>anymore. But my usual Toronto haunts don't have them and neither do my
>usual 'net haunts. Where are these available (preferably somewhere I can
>actually look at things like the quality of the books, etc.)?
Reviews at:
Books 0 - 8
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2921.html
Supplements 1 - 13
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3273.html
Neither has a picture, alas, but it is easy enough to describe.
The books are 8 1/2 x 11" tomes laid out in landscape format
(wider than tall, for anyone not familiar with the term.) They
are black, with the classic font and look. Inside, the books are
laid out two old pages to a new page, with nothing changed except
some subtle errata erasing.
The binding is of good quality (my copies are heavily used as
reference materials, and thus are often propped open for long
periods - so far, no cracks or creases.) The black gloss cover
has even stood up to the nicks, smears, and scratches that such
books normally get in short order.
Michael T. Richter
> Once again Michael: just because something does not appear
> in your neck of the woods, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Those who could still read despite a hint of Traveller's mention in a
potentially negative light quite probably saw me mention several places that
were not in my neck of the woods.... (Unless, of course, you think I
actually inhabit the Internet directly.)
>> Where are these available (preferably somewhere I can actually
>> look at things like the quality of the books, etc.)?
> Reviews at:
> Books 0 - 8
> http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2921.html
> Supplements 1 - 13
> http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3273.html
Reviews written by Traveller grognards are, frankly, worthless. It was
based on (pre-)reviews that I purchased T4. T4 was quite possibly the
single worst game I ever purchased at full price. (I have a sizable
collection of worse games, but I skim eBay to get these dirt cheap so I
don't feel ripped off by them.) Frankly, given the entirely uncritical
nature of Traveller's grognards, I will only purchase such books when I can
hold them in my hands. I need to evaluate them for myself because I simply
don't trust Traveller fans.
So I ask again: where can I see actual physical copies of these things?
Somewhere I can hold them in my hands, open them up and check the contents,
quality, etc.? I find it pretty odd that I can't locate these even in
Toronto, a sizable city with a couple of pretty decent game stores. (As I
said, it is no surprise to me that my local purveyor won't stock them. T4
pretty much burned any bridges Traveller had in that store.)
James Nicoll
>Somewhere I can hold them in my hands, open them up and check the contents,
>quality, etc.?
Imperiums to Order
12 Church St. [Near Church and Queen S.]
Kitchener ON
They're on the display at the front, near the register with
the pretty but sour looking cat draped over it.
--
My Pledge: No more than 2 OT posts to rasfw a day. No replying
to trolls and idiots. Start five good on topic threads a day to drown
out the crap. Drink more coffee. Cross-posting is an abomination.
Michael T. Richter
news:903g5l$6p0$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
> Imperiums to Order
> 12 Church St. [Near Church and Queen S.]
> Kitchener ON
I may actually be in that area in the near future. I'll drop by and check
it out. Thanks.
ed
>ed wrote:
>> The noble The Grouchybeast <thegrou...@hotmail.com> spake on the
>> day of Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:08:31 +0000:
>
>> >I had a look through the first 4th ed core book at Dragonmeet.
>> >(Unfortunately, the other two books hadn't made it from the printers
>> >yet.) I have to say I was put off by the price. Had it been cheaper I
>> >would have bought a copy there and then but as it is I'm going to wait
>> >for some reviews.
>>
>> What about the price? Did you feel that 11.95 was too much for the page
>> count/text size?
>
>It came to £36 for the 3 core rules books.
>Ah, I didn't notice that on the stand. For that I might have picked it
>up, if the other rulebooks had been available to look through.
If only you had asked. Although the Printing wasn't done the Printers
proofs were there.
But to reiterate, the price IS £24.95 for the three, plus GM's screen.
Lance Dyas
"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> dra...@dyasdesigns.com (Lance Dyas) wrote in
> <3A218ACE...@dyasdesigns.com>:
>
> >A game made by gamers.. was... Highlander the Collectible Trading Card
>
> A game made by gamers.. was...
>
<list of a few games... some good and some dead and some alive >
>
> You really should reduce your ignorance before sounding off.
Fully cognizant and not ignorant in the slightest... a good game design
doesnt mean you will be successful HTCC is a good example which
is why I presented it. You made assumptions.
*****************************************************************
Dragonlord Garthans - Decision Driven Gaming - Role Play center
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/lancelot/roleplay
Want custom art for your RPG characters?
*****************************************************************
Doug Berry
"Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com>, wrote thusly:
>"Doug Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:rl9a2tsr7lg1k0rcj...@4ax.com...
>> Reviews at:
>> Books 0 - 8
>> http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2921.html
>
>> Supplements 1 - 13
>> http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3273.html
>
>Reviews written by Traveller grognards are, frankly, worthless.
Ah. I'd give you a reference to a negative review, but I haven't
found any.
Is any favorable review automatically worthless?
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
Author of GURPS Traveller: Ground Forces
"And if they won't ally with you, Daddy, will
you blow up their sun?" - my niece.
Michael T. Richter
>>> Supplements 1 - 13
>>> http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3273.html
>> Reviews written by Traveller grognards are, frankly, worthless.
> Ah. I'd give you a reference to a negative review, but I haven't
> found any.
> Is any favorable review automatically worthless?
There's that reading comprehension problem again.
Find me a review written by someone who hasn't been playing Traveller for
the past six thousand years. Traveller grognards don't have a good track
record for being able to evaluate the worth of a Traveller product. T4 was
ample evidence of this. (Remember when *you* used to call T4 a great
product?)
Alternatively, I can take the trip to Kitchener and check out the book with
my own eyes. That, given the recent history of totally crappy Traveller
products, is likely the safest approach.
James Nicoll
perfectly happy if you came. It's not like Traveller is the only thing
I stock.
Have you seen the Little Black Books from 20 years ago? The
current reprint is about 8 1/2 tall by 11 wide, two columns wide,
bigger print than the originals but AFAICT the same text. I haven't
gone typo hunting. Not even indexes. Me, I don't like the floppy
format but I have never owned any traveller rules except the HC
and Striker, plus some of the board games.
So if you seen the LBB version, you're familiar with
these rules. Strictly a reprint edition from before the Era
of Enormous Conceptual Errors.
Now, I do play Classic Traveller but my frothing fanboyism
is currently wrt BESM, which I want to use to run a post-Singularity
campaign.
Jay Adan
I haven't been following this discussion very closely, but you do realize that
these products are essentially reprints of really old products bundled together
don't you?
- Jay
Michael T. Richter
news:3A26D2F5...@griffongames.com...
> I haven't been following this discussion very closely, but you do
> realize that these products are essentially reprints of really old
> products bundled together don't you?
Yes. Old products I used to own, in fact. That's why I'm interested in
production quality issues, not game mechanisms and the like. I *KNOW* the
game mechanics didn't work. :-)
Bryan J. Maloney
<ZgFV5.2427$_5.50...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>:
Original Traveller had game mechanics?
Bryan J. Maloney
<1dd82tolb8qnk4l7u...@4ax.com>:
>The noble The Grouchybeast <thegrou...@hotmail.com> spake on the
>day of Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:08:31 +0000:
>
>>Deathdog The Assassin wrote:
>>
>>> Hopefully some of the gamers out there will decide that it couldn't
>>> hurt to get another fantasy game on their shelves. Which in turn will
>>> let C&S 4th edition survive yet another decade or two.
>>
>>I had a look through the first 4th ed core book at Dragonmeet.
>>(Unfortunately, the other two books hadn't made it from the printers
>>yet.) I have to say I was put off by the price. Had it been cheaper I
>>would have bought a copy there and then but as it is I'm going to wait
>>for some reviews.
>
>Can I point out that for your money you get 104 pages of 8 point text
>with little interior art, so that there is a lot of stuff in there.
Will there be a sane and reasonable reprint for those of us who like legible
typography? Or do you folks include a free magnifying glass in the box?
Eight-point typeface? You really hate your customers, don't you?
Bryan J. Maloney
<0dl82tcvmo6sshcpg...@4ax.com>:
>I can wave C&S 1 at you which uses 6 point or my own handout which uses
>7.5.
I've got C&S 1. (Got it as a present.) It's in the category of
"unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being marginally
better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
>How ever, BGD do a nice, simple, uncluttered layout. You want to see an
>example, go to http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/ hit the download button
>and check out the Urtish language PDF download. If you don't want to
What's it look like in eight point?
Deathdog The Assassin
>edh...@equus.demon.co.uk (ed) wrote in
><0dl82tcvmo6sshcpg...@4ax.com>:
>
>>7.5.
>
>"unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being marginally
>better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
It's my understanding that C&S 1st edition was published with 4 actual
pages of text reduced to each page to lower production costs.
What would be nice is a pdf version of the 1st edition manuscript that I
could print out. I tried making a photocopy of my rulebook and enlarging
each 1/4 section, but it became tedious and wasn't very readable.
>>How ever, BGD do a nice, simple, uncluttered layout. You want to see an
>>example, go to http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/ hit the download button
>>and check out the Urtish language PDF download. If you don't want to
>
>What's it look like in eight point?
I don't see what the real problem is with the current layout C&S 4 will
use. ed has produced (well, him and some others) a nice 4 page "C&S
Essence" that describes all the basics. The type is small, but still
readable. I imagine if he used bigger type it would cease to be 4
pages...which is kind of the point. I printed it out this morning and it
looks fine.
--
Brad Everman aka Deathdog
http://www.deathdog.com, http://www.cyberjackass.com
"94% of the women in America are beautiful and the rest
hang out around here."
Deathdog The Assassin
>>
>>Can I point out that for your money you get 104 pages of 8 point text
>>with little interior art, so that there is a lot of stuff in there.
>
>Will there be a sane and reasonable reprint for those of us who like legible
>typography? Or do you folks include a free magnifying glass in the box?
>Eight-point typeface? You really hate your customers, don't you?
Look at L5R. Rather large type-face...huge fricking side margins. Rather
high cover price. Another example: Deadlands. Weird, pseudo-handwritten
type, lots of white space. High cover price. It seems that a lot of RPGs
that have been produced recently have lots of whitespace and graphics/art
with a decrease in word count, all while raising the price. Apparently it
pays better to draw than it does to write; that's the only way I could
justify the price increase.
I suppose I look at C&S compared to "fluff" RPGs much the same way I
compare my Encyclopedia Brittanicas to my Comptons: Lack of snazzy art and
a small typeface = more information. In the case of C&S (especially 1st
edition), there is so much information that it would be a disservice to
the customers to split it up into more books, i.e. more cost. I am sure
that Brittania Games would like to make an ass-load of money, but cheating
the customer is not the way to do it. D&D 3rd edition is by far the nicest
RPG I've ever seen, and they used a small type face to keep the costs low
for the consumer. Then again, WotC can afford to have a low profit margin
on their books due to the huge demand for them. I doubt C&S will be run in
100k+ print runs anytime soon, but if it is, I only see cover price
decreasing, not an increase in type-face and page count.
My point, if I ever had one, is that C&S has and always will be the most
value you will get for your RPG-dollar (besides D&D 3rd edition...the
antithesis of C&S, but a good game nonetheless).
Doug Berry
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney), wrote thusly:
>Original Traveller had game mechanics?
Sort of. If you squinted hard enough. The space combat system
was nice, although it didn't really have a system for everything
else until DGP introduced their task system.
It is, after all, a 1977 RPG. We weren't nearly as snobby about
elegant mechanics back then.
Terry Austin
"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:908e43$25d$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> >7.5.
>
> "unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being marginally
> better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
So you're saying that being pretty is more important to you
than being a good game?
Terry Austin
Ichabod
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
> "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:908e43$25d$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> > edh...@equus.demon.co.uk (ed) wrote in
> > <0dl82tcvmo6sshcpg...@4ax.com>:
> >
> > >I can wave C&S 1 at you which uses 6 point or my own handout which uses
> > >7.5.
> >
> > I've got C&S 1. (Got it as a present.) It's in the category of
> > "unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being marginally
> > better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
>
> So you're saying that being pretty is more important to you
> than being a good game?
Being easily readable is part of being a good game.
--
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien
Burger-flipper of the electronic age
"A pox upon the media and everything you read,
They tell you your opinions and they're very good indeed."
- Soft Boys
Bradd W. Szonye
>"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:908e43$25d$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being marginally
>> better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
>
>So you're saying that being pretty is more important to you
>than being a good game?
Nah, just that typography is a much-misunderstood and
more-important-than-you-realize art. Typography is not *just* art, it's
also ergonomics, and I personally value my vision.
ed
2000 14:54:59 GMT:
>edh...@equus.demon.co.uk (ed) wrote in
><0dl82tcvmo6sshcpg...@4ax.com>:
>
>>I can wave C&S 1 at you which uses 6 point or my own handout which uses
>>7.5.
>
>I've got C&S 1. (Got it as a present.) It's in the category of
>"unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being marginally
>better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
If you don't want it, I'll take it off your hands.
I think you are possibly spoiled by the typographical technology and
general cheapness of the means of production available today (even if
prone to abuse) to remember the RPG industry and what it was like in
1977, and what you have there is actually two (or was it four) pages
photo-reduced onto one to save money. Which was as much as FGU were
willing to shell out.
As it was, you got a shed load of game in an affordable package.
>>How ever, BGD do a nice, simple, uncluttered layout. You want to see an
>>example, go to http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/ hit the download button
>>and check out the Urtish language PDF download. If you don't want to
>
>What's it look like in eight point?
The font is Arial, same as the download you already have, it is bigger
than other fonts at 8 point, certainly bigger than D&D 3. I'm attempting
to get an extract to put up on the website for folk to see.
Bigfutrpga
Rebirth using 8 point Arial.
When we looking at font sizes we considered which font would get us the most
text in the space and still be readable. We opted for Arial 8 point and we
compared this with other products. When compared to D&D3e the font actually
matched if not a shade bigger.
We therefore opted to go with the font.
Regards
Steve
Terry Austin
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:slrn92fu5e...@zany.cup.hp.com...
> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
> >"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> >news:908e43$25d$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> >> "unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being
marginally
> >> better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
> >
> >than being a good game?
>
> Nah, just that typography is a much-misunderstood and
> more-important-than-you-realize art. Typography is not *just* art, it's
> also ergonomics, and I personally value my vision.
No, that's not what Bryan is saying. He's saying a game
that isn't pretty sucks. With no mention of the _game_
itself.
His call, of course. If he's that shallow, he's that shallow.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"Ichabod" <ich...@dmtcorp.com> wrote in message
news:ichabod-0112...@10.1.1.31...
> In article <908mc...@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Terry Austin"
> <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > news:908e43$25d$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> > > <0dl82tcvmo6sshcpg...@4ax.com>:
> > >
> > > >I can wave C&S 1 at you which uses 6 point or my own handout which
uses
> > > >7.5.
> > >
> > > "unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being
marginally
> > > better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
> >
> > So you're saying that being pretty is more important to you
> > than being a good game?
>
>
point.
And I've seen a number of good games that weren't easy
to read. C&S 1 is one of them, in fact.
Terry Austin
Bradd W. Szonye
>>What's it look like in eight point?
>
>The font is Arial, same as the download you already have, it is bigger
>than other fonts at 8 point, certainly bigger than D&D 3. I'm attempting
>to get an extract to put up on the website for folk to see.
Ack! You're using *Arial*, a cheap knock-off of *Helvetica*, which is
itself a poor font, at *eight points*, which is smaller than accepted
running-text sizes, for a *technical manual*, and defending the quality
of the typography?
About the only good thing that could be said about that (unless there
are *serious* extenuating circumstances) is that it *could* be much
worse.
There is a difference, you know, between "barely legible" and "good
typography," right?
Bradd W. Szonye
>"Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:slrn92fu5e...@zany.cup.hp.com...
>> more-important-than-you-realize art. Typography is not *just* art, it's
>> also ergonomics, and I personally value my vision.
>
>No, that's not what Bryan is saying. He's saying a game
>that isn't pretty sucks. With no mention of the _game_
>itself.
That's not the impression I got. In considering the whole package, you
must consider the typography. It is a publication, after all, and it's
worthwhile to judge its value *as* a book, not just a game. Especially
if it's a book you'll need to read more than once or refer to often.
>His call, of course. If he's that shallow, he's that shallow.
Concern for typography is not shallow. In fact, it's admirable and
regrettably rare. *Not* judging a book's typography would be like not
judging a software product's interface; while the product may have good
*content*, that's meaningless if usability is poor.
Bigfutrpga
fair sized hardback books and made a lot more money.
But we are trying to give value for money in the rules. So far the feedback we
have received has not supported the current comments on a product not seen.
Sample comments quoted from e-mails received.
"Superb piece of work"
"It looks very Cool it feels like 2nd Edition, it feels like this should have
been 3rd edition and "That Book" should been put back on the gaming shelf and
forgotton about."
I think they sort of say it all.
Regards
Steve
ed
Since there has been some discussion as to how readable C&S 4's 8 point
Arial might be BGD has put a PDF sample of a page up on its website.
You can download it from the BGD website
http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk and look for the C&S 4 sample link, or
alternately grab it direct from
http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/download/cns4samp.pdf
Of course if your papaer isn't the same size as that used by BGD then
there will be some small distortion, but it should give you some idea.
ed
Since there has been some discussion as to how readable C&S 4's 8 point
Arial might be BGD has put a PDF sample of a page up on its website.
You can download it from the BGD website
http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk and look for the C&S 4 sample link, or
alternately grab it direct from
http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/download/cns4samp.pdf
Of course if your papaer isn't the same size as that used by BGD then
there will be some small distortion, but it should give you some idea.
ed
Webmaster for Brittannia Game Designs Ltd.
--
bgd...@britgamedesigns.co.uk http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/
Publishers of "Chivalry and Sorcery" & Mail Order Games Suppliers
Convention Calendar and Club List on Site <*>
Why not submit your own Club or Convention?
ed
Dec 2000 22:23:55 GMT:
>ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>What's it look like in eight point?
>>
>>The font is Arial, same as the download you already have, it is bigger
>>than other fonts at 8 point, certainly bigger than D&D 3. I'm attempting
>>to get an extract to put up on the website for folk to see.
>
>Ack! You're using *Arial*, a cheap knock-off of *Helvetica*, which is
>itself a poor font, at *eight points*, which is smaller than accepted
>running-text sizes, for a *technical manual*, and defending the quality
>of the typography?
Yes I am. If you want to make something of it then fly over here and
I'll tan your hide for you.
Seriously though, anyone who's heard me talk to Steve about his choice
of font will have heard me describe it as boring but clear to read.
That's the point, can you read it?
Mr. Maloney seemed to find Arial adequate for the purpose, at least he
didn't complain when he mentioned it earlier. In fact I sent him a
sample and he didn't comment on it anywhere I saw.
When I did my bit recently I used 7 (not 7.5 as I said earlier, my
mistake) point Albertus Medium and even that was readable.
Font snobbery aside, the main criteria is legibility. plain as the
typeface might seem to a connesieur of things fontish, it works.
C&S 2, my favourite edition of C&S until 4th, also was a plain in
typeface but a damn good game.
As you may have seen elsewhere you can make your own mind up about the
readability or otherwise
http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/download/cns4samp.pdf
Remember also that the alternative was to jack the price up by taking up
more space.
I also quote Michael T. Richter in his review of C&S Light, laid out
with the same rules by the same people.
"C&SL is almost, but not quite, completely unlike C&S3 in this regard.
Its layout is crisp and clean. Whitespace is used to block the text into
related concepts. Fonts are properly used for emphasis (bold, italic)
and for section headings (different fonts). Reasonably good stock art is
used to help fill blank spaces caused by proper layout. Examples are
distinguished from surrounding text by placing them into sidebars and
shading the sidebars grey.
"About the only thing I thought could have been improved layout-wise is
the use of tables. Some tables are long, wide lists lacking the
traditional alternating bands of grey and white backgrounds to ease
navigation. This is a minor problem, however. In all other respects C&SL
is laid out as well as the layout kings in the industry. Indeed the
layout reminds me of the good layouts from BTRC, my favorite company for
functional layouts. "
>About the only good thing that could be said about that (unless there
>are *serious* extenuating circumstances) is that it *could* be much
>worse.
>
>There is a difference, you know, between "barely legible" and "good
>typography," right?
Did you consider what I said earlier about the balances to be met by the
publisher?
Sea Wasp
>
> edh...@equus.demon.co.uk (ed) wrote in
> <0dl82tcvmo6sshcpg...@4ax.com>:
>
> >I can wave C&S 1 at you which uses 6 point or my own handout which uses
> >7.5.
>
> I've got C&S 1. (Got it as a present.) It's in the category of
> "unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being marginally
> better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
Not THAT much smaller than the original Arduin typeface!
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Bradd W. Szonye
>The noble bra...@concentric.net (Bradd W. Szonye) spake on the day of 1
>Dec 2000 22:23:55 GMT:
>
>>ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>What's it look like in eight point?
>>>
>>>The font is Arial, same as the download you already have, it is bigger
>>>than other fonts at 8 point, certainly bigger than D&D 3. I'm attempting
>>>to get an extract to put up on the website for folk to see.
>>
>>Ack! You're using *Arial*, a cheap knock-off of *Helvetica*, which is
>>itself a poor font, at *eight points*, which is smaller than accepted
>>running-text sizes, for a *technical manual*, and defending the quality
>>of the typography?
>
>of font will have heard me describe it as boring but clear to read.
>That's the point, can you read it?
Typography is not about making it *possible* to read, but making it a
*pleasure* to read.
>When I did my bit recently I used 7 (not 7.5 as I said earlier, my
>mistake) point Albertus Medium and even that was readable.
>
>Font snobbery aside, the main criteria is legibility. plain as the
>typeface might seem to a connesieur of things fontish, it works.
The problem with Helvetica (and Arial) is not that it is "plain" but
that it is poorly-designed. There are other simple, sans serif fonts
superior to Helvetica, if you're aiming for a "plain" look. Using Arial
tells me that nobody put any effort into the typography; they just
tossed out whatever looked passible in Microsoft Word.
In other words, using a small-size Arial font indicates that good
typography is *not* a priority for the publication.
>C&S 2, my favourite edition of C&S until 4th, also was a plain in
>typeface but a damn good game.
There's a difference between a good game and a good book. If somebody
wants to criticize the book, it sounds like they have valid grounds. You
shouldn't become defensive and act in "wounded pride" mode for getting
called a spade, if you're a spade.
>Remember also that the alternative was to jack the price up by taking up
>more space.
Then you've made a trade-off between good typography and an affordable
price. Don't try to tell me that it's fine typography, however.
>I also quote Michael T. Richter in his review of C&S Light, laid out
>with the same rules by the same people.
>
>"C&SL is almost, but not quite, completely unlike C&S3 in this regard.
>Its layout is crisp and clean. Whitespace is used to block the text into
>related concepts. Fonts are properly used for emphasis (bold, italic)
>and for section headings (different fonts). Reasonably good stock art is
>used to help fill blank spaces caused by proper layout. Examples are
>distinguished from surrounding text by placing them into sidebars and
>shading the sidebars grey."
This says to me not that you've done a fine job of typography; rather,
it tells me that C&S3 made even *worse* mistakes. In other words, the
typography in C&S3 was poor; in C&S4, it is serviceable. The egregious
mistakes are gone.
That is still a far cry from good typography, however. It's merely
stopped being *awful* typography.
>"In all other respects C&SL is laid out as well as the layout kings in
>the industry. Indeed the layout reminds me of the good layouts from
>BTRC, my favorite company for functional layouts. "
While I haven't had the pleasure of reading the supposedly-great BTRC
books, this praise doesn't mean much to me. Who are the layout kings in
the industry? (Aside from BTRC.) Actually, some of the best typography
I've seen in the industry (which has generally *awful* typography) has
been in the new D&D manuals, and even they need considerable work.
(Don't get me started on Dragon magazine -- their typography has gone
right down the crapper since the D&D release.)
>>About the only good thing that could be said about that (unless there
>>are *serious* extenuating circumstances) is that it *could* be much
>>worse.
>>
>>There is a difference, you know, between "barely legible" and "good
>>typography," right?
>
>Did you consider what I said earlier about the balances to be met by the
>publisher?
Okay, but don't try to tell me that it's good typography. It's the best
typography possible within budgetary constraints, perhaps, but that
doesn't make it *good*.
Sea Wasp
>
> m...@ottawa.com (Michael T. Richter) wrote in
> <ZgFV5.2427$_5.50...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>:
>
> >> realize that these products are essentially reprints of really old
> >> products bundled together don't you?
> >
> >Yes. Old products I used to own, in fact. That's why I'm interested in
> >production quality issues, not game mechanisms and the like. I *KNOW* the
> >game mechanics didn't work. :-)
> >
>
Sure. Don't you remember dying during character generation?
Doug Berry
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney), wrote thusly:
>sea...@wizvax.net (Sea Wasp) wrote in <3A27AC...@wizvax.net>:
>
>> Sure. Don't you remember dying during character generation?
>
>That's a major bit of suckage for the guy who manages to roll up a Count...
Or the guy who gets some skill at level 7, or rolls a number of
natural 12s and then pumps them up to 15.
Sean Glenn
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>And I've seen a number of good games that weren't easy
>to read. C&S 1 is one of them, in fact.
>
>Terry Austin
It all depends on what you want from your gaming reference books. When I
first purchased my set of D&D books, I loved them. There was all this
cool art, and they were a bit cryptic looking (of course, I was 8 years
old then I think), and I played the hell out of that game. Then along
came the redesign on Top Secret (the orignal edition) which started with
the Operation: Orient Express module. Suddenly this whole new world was
opened to me. The design of the book complemented and reflected the
setting and game. I was blown away. It looked like a spy movie.
I was instantly hooked on graphic design and typography.
So, having looked over the 8-point Arial layout for C&S I'm not
impressed. It's serviceable. Perhaps, as others have pointed out, this
is yet one more product in a long line of C&S products that look
"serviceable." My feeling is there are better ways to showcase large
amounts of information. Sometimes, things just need more editing.
Othertimes, you do what you can to shove what could have been a 350 page
book into 256 pages. Which is what I did with the graphic design for
Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition. I wanted a book that complemented and
reflected the game of D&D the same way that Top Secret module did. It
needed to be exciting and engaging, and fit well within the concept of
what 3rd Edition looked like. The type had to be very readable at small
size, since we had so much information to fit (I think our pages held up
to about 1100 words, which is quite a few for those who don't do book
layout). As contrast, we had a little more room with Star Wars, and i
designed a more airy layout (which also better befits the Star Wars
design ethos).
I wish more people cared about typography, and how it helps, rather than
doesn't affect at all, the gaming experience. My suggestion for the C&S
guys, change typefaces. Look at what the black & white page is capable
of, and design your book to reflect your content.
Of course, if your audience will scoff at fancy layouts and fancy
typography, then by all means, stick with 8 point Arial. But don't
expect anyone to get that rush of excitement looking at it.
A good game that is good looking as well is always better than a good
game that looks boring. Poor design of information (after all that is
all books are, information design) causes confusion and hinders
understanding.
I could go on about this, but you're all probably bored out of your
skulls by now. Sorry to ramble so much. It's just that I'm pretty damn
passionate about design and typography.
--
Sean Glenn
ed
>In other words, using a small-size Arial font indicates that good
>typography is *not* a priority for the publication.
>
>>C&S 2, my favourite edition of C&S until 4th, also was a plain in
>>typeface but a damn good game.
>
>There's a difference between a good game and a good book. If somebody
>wants to criticize the book, it sounds like they have valid grounds. You
>shouldn't become defensive and act in "wounded pride" mode for getting
>called a spade, if you're a spade.
>Then you've made a trade-off between good typography and an affordable
>price. Don't try to tell me that it's fine typography, however.
This was, in fact, my whole point. The history of the argument which you
entered was two fold
1) Was over Price
2) Was over readability.
Since, as stated earlier part of the priority was to keep the page count
down to reduce cost to the gamer the next stage was to keep it readable.
So that brings us to point 2. Mr. Maloney was concerned about
readability. We have stated that it is readable. NOT that it is the
finest results of the fontsmith's art, our aim has been simple
legibility.
So your charge is correct, but we haven't been deniying it, we've been
stating it as a fact.
>>I also quote Michael T. Richter in his review of C&S Light, laid out
>>with the same rules by the same people.
>>
>>"C&SL is almost, but not quite, completely unlike C&S3 in this regard.
>>Its layout is crisp and clean. Whitespace is used to block the text into
>>related concepts. Fonts are properly used for emphasis (bold, italic)
>>and for section headings (different fonts). Reasonably good stock art is
>>used to help fill blank spaces caused by proper layout. Examples are
>>distinguished from surrounding text by placing them into sidebars and
>>shading the sidebars grey."
>
>This says to me not that you've done a fine job of typography; rather,
>it tells me that C&S3 made even *worse* mistakes. In other words, the
>typography in C&S3 was poor; in C&S4, it is serviceable. The egregious
>mistakes are gone.
>
>That is still a far cry from good typography, however. It's merely
>stopped being *awful* typography.
As I have beensaying. Our aim is legibility and readability. Whilst I
may disagree with Steve on some things about the fonts I have to agree
that they are readable. Not that the eye is carressed by a pleasing
font, just that it is readable.
>>"In all other respects C&SL is laid out as well as the layout kings in
>>the industry. Indeed the layout reminds me of the good layouts from
>>BTRC, my favorite company for functional layouts. "
>
>While I haven't had the pleasure of reading the supposedly-great BTRC
>books, this praise doesn't mean much to me. Who are the layout kings in
>the industry? (Aside from BTRC.) Actually, some of the best typography
>I've seen in the industry (which has generally *awful* typography) has
>been in the new D&D manuals, and even they need considerable work.
>(Don't get me started on Dragon magazine -- their typography has gone
>right down the crapper since the D&D release.)
In that case why don't you prepare a small monograph on the use of
typography. You could try submitting it to Games Unplugged as it might
be the sort of thing they'd published. Or you could post it on a
website.
>>Did you consider what I said earlier about the balances to be met by the
>>publisher?
>
>Okay, but don't try to tell me that it's good typography. It's the best
>typography possible within budgetary constraints, perhaps, but that
>doesn't make it *good*.
Which is never been my claim. My claim was for "adequate and readable",
nothing more.
Bryan J. Maloney
<slrn92fg97....@eris.io.com>:
>On 1 Dec 2000 14:53:03 GMT, Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>Can I point out that for your money you get 104 pages of 8 point text
>>>with little interior art, so that there is a lot of stuff in there.
>>
>>Will there be a sane and reasonable reprint for those of us who like
>>legible typography? Or do you folks include a free magnifying glass in
>>the box? Eight-point typeface? You really hate your customers, don't
>>you?
>
>Look at L5R. Rather large type-face...huge fricking side margins. Rather
>high cover price. Another example: Deadlands. Weird, pseudo-handwritten
Oh, and of course there is NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL of there being anything in
between the extremes. Oh, no, anything that is not one extreme or another
CANNOT exist, for God has so decreed, right?
>cheating the customer is not the way to do it. D&D 3rd edition is by far
>the nicest RPG I've ever seen, and they used a small type face to keep
It wasn't a sans serif gothic typeface. It was a nice, readable serif roman
typeface.
Bryan J. Maloney
<908mc...@enews3.newsguy.com>:
>So you're saying that being pretty is more important to you
>than being a good game?
Stop acting the stupid dink. It ill-suits you. You know better than that.
You also know that games can be of equal quality and one be better
presented than another. Were there two products out I anticipated roughly
equally and one were more legible than the other, the legibility could tip
the purchase decision.
Bryan J. Maloney
>
>"Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:slrn92fu5e...@zany.cup.hp.com...
>> Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>> >"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:908e43$25d$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>> >> I've got C&S 1. (Got it as a present.) It's in the category of
>> >> "unreadable example of brain-dead typographical choice". Being
>marginally
>> >> better than pathetically execrable is no improvement worth noting.
>> >
>> >So you're saying that being pretty is more important to you
>> >than being a good game?
>>
>> Nah, just that typography is a much-misunderstood and
>> more-important-than-you-realize art. Typography is not *just* art, it's
>> also ergonomics, and I personally value my vision.
>
>No, that's not what Bryan is saying. He's saying a game
>that isn't pretty sucks. With no mention of the _game_
>itself.
Prove it. I'm calling you out. Prove that I said this. Prove that I
stated that quality is of NO CONSIDERATION AT ALL. Give a direct quote
wherein I have stated this.
Bryan J. Maloney
<e8cg2toap40jrgvdt...@4ax.com>:
>Mr. Maloney seemed to find Arial adequate for the purpose, at least he
>didn't complain when he mentioned it earlier. In fact I sent him a
>sample and he didn't comment on it anywhere I saw.
No, when looking at the first thing sent--the Marakush language thing, I
specifically complained about the typeface. Now that I was FINALLY able to
get the other pdf file to print without a postscript error, I did a bit of
a comparitive set of readings.
My conclusions:
Less easily read than D&D 3rd edition.
Less easily read than GURPS.
Less easily read than a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (USA) in a field that has miniml overlap with my own, excepting
the references, which are in a smaller typeface.
Less easily read than a paper in Science that was in my field, excepting
for the references.
Overall impression: Layout is good, but the typeface chosen (arial 8 point)
makes reading difficult (the text is hard to follow and I had to slow down
from my normal reading speed to get the material). While this would not
prevent a game purchase in and of itself, it would be a factor if deciding
between this product and another.
>
>When I did my bit recently I used 7 (not 7.5 as I said earlier, my
>mistake) point Albertus Medium and even that was readable.
>
>Font snobbery aside, the main criteria is legibility. plain as the
>typeface might seem to a connesieur of things fontish, it works.
It fails. A serif font would have worked better.
Bradd W. Szonye
>The noble bra...@concentric.net (Bradd W. Szonye) spake on the day of 1
>Dec 2000 23:40:43 GMT:
>>price. Don't try to tell me that it's fine typography, however.
>
>This was, in fact, my whole point. The history of the argument which you
>entered was two fold
>
>1) Was over Price
>2) Was over readability.
>
>Since, as stated earlier part of the priority was to keep the page count
>down to reduce cost to the gamer the next stage was to keep it readable.
Ah, okay. I must have missed something. Perhaps I was blinded by all the
antagonism and defensiveness flying about. As long as your goal is
"as good as possible within the budget" and "serviceable if not
beautiful," then that's reasonable. Not everything can be a coffee-table
book. I have some doubts that small Arial text *is* serviceable, but
I'll take your word for it.
>So that brings us to point 2. Mr. Maloney was concerned about
>readability. We have stated that it is readable. NOT that it is the
>finest results of the fontsmith's art, our aim has been simple
>legibility.
Gotcha. Again, it strains my belief a little, but at least those with
younger and brighter eyes than me will probably be able to make out
what's written in it. *grin*
>So your charge is correct, but we haven't been deniying it, we've been
>stating it as a fact.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I'd recommend a little caution, however; I did get the impression that
the book was being lauded as a masterpiece of readability, and you did
sound defensive to me before. It was the dissonance between "highly
readable" and "8-point Arial" that set off my BS-meter.
Bryan J. Maloney
<g6gf2to46ehnl3k8v...@4ax.com>:
>It is, after all, a 1977 RPG. We weren't nearly as snobby about
>elegant mechanics back then.
>
We just kind of rolled dice and made up the results--I started playing
Traveller before any semblance of "experience" existed in the game (we
inserted a method). We had as much fun with character generation as with
play. It's the only game where the attitude was as likely to be "Got
killed, I GET to roll up a new character" instead of "I HAVE to roll up a
new character".
Bryan J. Maloney
Bryan J. Maloney
<20001201170950...@ng-fr1.aol.com>:
>There have been a number of comments regarding the readability of C&S
>The Rebirth using 8 point Arial.
>
>When we looking at font sizes we considered which font would get us the
>most text in the space and still be readable. We opted for Arial 8
>point and we compared this with other products. When compared to D&D3e
>the font actually matched if not a shade bigger.
I find D&D 3rd edition to be easier reading than the sample page.
Iron Czar
wrote:
>Hi there
>
>Since there has been some discussion as to how readable C&S 4's 8 point
>Arial might be BGD has put a PDF sample of a page up on its website.
>
>You can download it from the BGD website
>http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk and look for the C&S 4 sample link, or
>alternately grab it direct from
>
>http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/download/cns4samp.pdf
It looks good to me on my screen--I did not print it out. Personally,
I *prefer* sans serif typefaces, but this is generally held to be a
minority view.
Iron Czar
Brett Slocum
I did print it out and the font is *way* too small. *Nothing* should be
professionally published with less than 10 point font, except for disclaimers
and such minor uses. A whole page of 8 point font will give your customers (what
few you have left) a major headache.
The last thing C&S needs is another unreadable microscopic font. (Yes, I cut my
teeth on C&S 1, but I also needed glasses before I was done).
---
Brett Slocum <slo...@skypoint.com> - ICQ #13032903
http://www.skypoint.com/~slocum/
GURPS: http://www.skypoint.com/~slocum/gurps/
Tekumel: http://www.skypoint.com/~slocum/tekumel/
ed
Dec 2000 01:17:03 GMT:
>Sorry for the misunderstanding.
>
>I'd recommend a little caution, however; I did get the impression that
>the book was being lauded as a masterpiece of readability,
Only compared to
a) C&S 3 and
b) The constraints of other pressures.
> and you did
>sound defensive to me before. It was the dissonance between "highly
>readable" and "8-point Arial" that set off my BS-meter.
Fair enough.
take care
Deathdog The Assassin
>>
>>Look at L5R. Rather large type-face...huge fricking side margins. Rather
>>high cover price. Another example: Deadlands. Weird, pseudo-handwritten
>
>Oh, and of course there is NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL of there being anything in
>between the extremes. Oh, no, anything that is not one extreme or another
>CANNOT exist, for God has so decreed, right?
I never ever said that. I was simply making a point that when you use
high-end typographical methods, the cost increases exponentionally.
>>cheating the customer is not the way to do it. D&D 3rd edition is by far
>>the nicest RPG I've ever seen, and they used a small type face to keep
>
>It wasn't a sans serif gothic typeface. It was a nice, readable serif roman
>typeface.
And WotC, once again, has lots and lots of money. Brittania Games does
not. I *LIKE* the typeface and layout. I have zero problems reading the
current C&S books (Light, Dwarves, etc).
--
Brad Everman aka Deathdog
http://www.deathdog.com, http://www.cyberjackass.com
"94% of the women in America are beautiful and the rest
hang out around here."
Deathdog The Assassin
>
>I could go on about this, but you're all probably bored out of your
>skulls by now. Sorry to ramble so much. It's just that I'm pretty damn
>passionate about design and typography.
I'm sure Brittania Games would love to have you do layout for their
books. But of course, WotC has lots of money to spend, so you'd have to
take a paycut...
And, yes, the D&D 3rd edition is supernice. I've said it before, and I'll
say it again.
Jim Davies
>Hi there
>
>Since there has been some discussion as to how readable C&S 4's 8 point
>Arial might be BGD has put a PDF sample of a page up on its website.
I have no problems with the font or type size (though I acknowledge
that serif fonts are slightly easier to read).
It's a bit lightweight: staple-bound softcover with one botched
staple. Not a crisis, but it won't resist heavy use. It was quite
cheap, so I didn't expect much.
My main problem is that the book is not terribly well organised.
Starting from scratch to design a character, I was frequently
confronted with references to "vocational skills" and things like
"Warrior" without any meaningful explanation of what was meant. For
example, though chargen starts on p2, it isn't stated until p37 that a
"Warrior" is a specific character class (aka Vocation).
So when I roll up a character, a son of a Peddler, I'm told on p7 that
I can increase 5 of my "basic skills". The only skills mentioned for
me so far are Bargaining, Con and 1 [presumably trade-related?] skill
of my choice. It later transpires (p36) that I also have 8 background
skills.
More skills get added or modified at unexpected points, and I'm not
sure how this affects the xp total.
There's no character sheet. As a result, I expect I'd miss things
completely, especially as the different social classes and vocations
vary substantially.
It really suffers from
(i) an introduction to what describes a character: attributes,
family, vocation, skills, ads/disads, other (in that order, please,
not the shotgun approach as printed). There's a list on p2, but it
makes _no_mention_whatsoever_ of vocation or skills.
and (ii) a complete integrated example of character creation. There
are part examples, but not a single character taken from kickoff to
the final whistle. I strongly recommend putting such an example on the
website.
There's a fairly complete example of skill selection (Brigit on p35)
but it's not in the chargen, vocation or skills chapters where I'd
have expected to find it.
While the system does generate characters with depth and personality,
it would take me at least 5 attempts to have any confidence that I was
doing it right, and even then I'd probably forget something.
The core mechanism rules are wedged in halfway through the character
rules (ch1=chargen, 2=ads/disads, 3=core, 4=vocations, 5=skills).
I've not yet assaulted the combat system. If it's anything like
chargen, it'll fight back, and it's bigger than me.
The magic book isn't out yet; probably a good thing as it'll take me a
month to disentangle this one. Maybe you should have taken a leaf out
of ASL & SFB's book and had it hole-punched so the players could
rearrange the rules into a sensible order. It'd also fix the dodgy
staple problem.
I have C&S2, and always felt that the background was vastly better
than the essentially unusable rules. I'm disappointed to feel somewhat
that way here too. Maybe it'll come in time, but I'm not enthusiastic.
[followups to rgfm, ugr only]
Jim Davies
----------
Mind your manners, son! I've got a tall pointy hat!
Sean Glenn
(Deathdog The Assassin) wrote:
>I'm sure Brittania Games would love to have you do layout for their
>books. But of course, WotC has lots of money to spend, so you'd have to
>take a paycut...
>
>And, yes, the D&D 3rd edition is supernice. I've said it before, and I'll
>say it again.
Well, I've done work for free before (ie Dragonfist), and I'm sure I'll
do it again sometime.
Thanks for the nice comments about 3E... it was quite a lot of work, but
one of the most rewarding projects I've ever worked on. Couldn't have
done it without Dawn Murin's help, and of course, it helps we had a kick
ass game to design for.
--
Sean Glenn
Eric Tolle
>
> > Original Traveller had game mechanics?
>
Actually, no. To my knowledge, I've never died during Traveller
character generation. I won't leave out the possibility of memory
loss after resuscitation though.
;')
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
People tend to underestimate the impact of scientific progress.
Why just fifty years ago, only a few people had even heard of DNA,
and now everybody who is somebody uses it!
Terry Austin
>On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:44:17 GMT, agri...@yahoo.com (Iron Czar) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 23:08:54 +0000, ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi there
>>>
>>>Since there has been some discussion as to how readable C&S 4's 8 point
>>>Arial might be BGD has put a PDF sample of a page up on its website.
>>>
>>>You can download it from the BGD website
>>>http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk and look for the C&S 4 sample link, or
>>>alternately grab it direct from
>>>
>>>http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/download/cns4samp.pdf
>>
>>It looks good to me on my screen--I did not print it out. Personally,
>>I *prefer* sans serif typefaces, but this is generally held to be a
>>minority view.
>
>I did print it out and the font is *way* too small. *Nothing* should be
>professionally published with less than 10 point font, except for disclaimers
>and such minor uses. A whole page of 8 point font will give your customers (what
>few you have left) a major headache.
>
>The last thing C&S needs is another unreadable microscopic font. (Yes, I cut my
>teeth on C&S 1, but I also needed glasses before I was done).
>
The alternative, unfortunately, is either a $50 game, or an incomplete game.
Both of which also product vitriolic responses. IMO, they mad the right
choice. YMMV.
John Kim
A number of people have praised the layout. While I don't actively
dislike it, I thought I would add some a negative points.
Sean Glenn <sean...@mac.com> wrote:
>Then along came the redesign on Top Secret (the orignal edition) which
>started with the Operation: Orient Express module. Suddenly this whole
>new world was opened to me. The design of the book complemented and
>reflected the setting and game. I was blown away. It looked like a
>spy movie.
[...]
>Which is what I did with the graphic design for Dungeons & Dragons
>3rd Edition. I wanted a book that complemented and reflected the game
>of D&D the same way that Top Secret module did. It needed to be
>exciting and engaging, and fit well within the concept of what 3rd
>Edition looked like.
While I agree that the PH and DMG are eminently readable --
I don't feel that they are anything more than "serviceable". I think
I agree about Orient Express, if it is the one I am remembering.
Somewhat more recent examples in my mind would be SJG's _GURPS Goblins_
and Last Unicorn Games' original-series _Star Trek_ rulebook, both of
which were great for evoking the feel of their material.
However, I don't feel this way about the Players Handbook at all.
None of the elements hang together to me to evoke anything in particular.
Certainly I don't instantly get a feel for a fantasy movie or novel.
Of course, content is a big part of this. The PH is a dense pack of
almost pure rules mechanics with almost no "flavor" material, unlike
say GURPS Goblins. Typography and layout should serve function. As
an almost-pure mechanics reference, the layout should help this.
Some specifics:
1) This is in part a personal peeve, but I hate it when illustrations
are placed so that the text has to raggedly dodge around it -- or
worse the illustration actually splashes onto the text like the
lightning bolt on PH pages 80-81. The PH doesn't have a lot of
illustrations (may 1 per 8 pages), but all of them are in this
style. It also means that the pictures have no background.
2) Re: the pseudo-hand-drawn lines below each line of text that fade
in and out. These don't hurt readability, but they certainly don't
help it. Moreover, their use for tables makes some tables harder
to use than in, say, 2nd ed AD&D, which uses gray shading. For
example, I want to see what spells per day a 12th level wizard has.
There is a line under 12 which goes to the next column, but it
fades out three times before getting to the spells.
I realize that this was probably a deliberate design decision
to make the layout look less "mechanical". However, frankly, the
book *is* nearly pure mechanics, and it shoudl be designed so that
you can quickly flip to find the rule you want to know.
3) The chapters start with odd pencil drawings which are of fantasy
subjects but done in a modern-day style. For example, PH Chapter 2
starts with "Racial Chart Study C" with "Fig. A", "Fig. B", and
so forth. The Chapter 8 starts with handwritten comments like
"The deltoid, shown here in the anterior surrounds the targetted
shoulder joint." Is this supposed to be a subtle comment on the
anachronisms common to AD&D games? I don't get it.
4) There are several features, starting with the cover, which attempt
to give the feel of an old hand-written tome. (The line rules which
fade in and out, the shading at the edges of the pages.) However,
this is at odds with the text which is always written to the player
with no flavor stories or material from the point-of-view of the
characters.
5) The PH has color borders so that the tab-like chapter and page
numbering are visible from the side. This could have been used to
make it easier to flip directly to a chapter, by having the chapter
tabs in descending position and/or different colors. However, this
was not done.
For that matter, it isn't clear to me what the colorful marbled
border of each page is supposed to be. It doesn't seem to me to
evoke anything in particular -- just a sort of generic fanciness.
It doesn't even seem to support the half-hearted "old tome" feel.
Contrast this to, say, _GURPS Goblins_ where the header and footer
directly evoke the feel and content of the game.
Anyhow, those are my criticisms. The layout is certainly
servicable and readable, but I don't put it at the top of my list
by any means.
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Jason Corley
> Some specifics:
> I realize that this was probably a deliberate design decision
> to make the layout look less "mechanical". However, frankly, the
> book *is* nearly pure mechanics, and it shoudl be designed so that
> you can quickly flip to find the rule you want to know.
My own pet peeve: "Flavor text" has always bothered me, and the more
prevalent it's become (fiction introductions and so forth), themore it
bothers me. I always feel like I'm looking over the shoulder of another GM
at their game (and I've nearly always thought that it's a cruddy GM and a
lousy game.) A mechanics-heavy book like D&D3 PG makes me /happy/.
> 3) The chapters start with odd pencil drawings which are of fantasy
> subjects but done in a modern-day style. For example, PH Chapter 2
> starts with "Racial Chart Study C" with "Fig. A", "Fig. B", and
> so forth. The Chapter 8 starts with handwritten comments like
> "The deltoid, shown here in the anterior surrounds the targetted
> shoulder joint." Is this supposed to be a subtle comment on the
> anachronisms common to AD&D games? I don't get it.
I actually think the anachronisms are sort of supposed to be there - sort
of the Da Vinci-esque Renaissance-style junk. There are certainly plenty
of anachronisms in the equipment list.
> 5) The PH has color borders so that the tab-like chapter and page
> numbering are visible from the side. This could have been used to
> make it easier to flip directly to a chapter, by having the chapter
> tabs in descending position and/or different colors. However, this
> was not done.
Agreed. That would be /so/ nice.
> For that matter, it isn't clear to me what the colorful marbled
> border of each page is supposed to be. It doesn't seem to me to
> evoke anything in particular -- just a sort of generic fanciness.
I think this is a good feature, not a bad one. There really isn't much of
a /setting/ in the PG, DMG and MM. So genericness in appearance is a good
thing.
Everything else is spot on.
--
"He means well for his country, is always an honest man, often a wise man,
but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his senses."
-----Benjamin Franklin, 1783
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
ed
Dec 2000 04:27:49 GMT:
>On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:44:17 GMT, agri...@yahoo.com (Iron Czar) wrote:
>I did print it out and the font is *way* too small. *Nothing* should be
>professionally published with less than 10 point font, except for disclaimers
>and such minor uses. A whole page of 8 point font will give your customers (what
>few you have left) a major headache.
>
>The last thing C&S needs is another unreadable microscopic font. (Yes, I cut my
>teeth on C&S 1, but I also needed glasses before I was done).
I should point out that the *Professionally* printed version is larger
than the PDF when printed and sharper than it appears on my poor old
inkjet.
Sean Glenn
jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) wrote:
> A reply to Sean Glenn concerning the D&D3 layout and typography.
>A number of people have praised the layout. While I don't actively
>dislike it, I thought I would add some a negative points.
I think these are all reasonable and well thought out criticisms, and I
appreciate the commentary. In case you're interested, I'll make some
comments on your points, so you can see what goes on behind the scenes
in producing a book like the PHB from the designer's perspective. If
that stuff bores you, by all means, skip over this.
> While I agree that the PH and DMG are eminently readable --
>I don't feel that they are anything more than "serviceable". I think
>I agree about Orient Express, if it is the one I am remembering.
>Somewhat more recent examples in my mind would be SJG's _GURPS Goblins_
>and Last Unicorn Games' original-series _Star Trek_ rulebook, both of
>which were great for evoking the feel of their material.
The Star Trek TOS book was a great inspiration to me. While I would have
used Spartan, rather than Formata, for the body copy, the book very much
captures the feel of the 60s TV show (except the illustrations, which
are basically bad, minus of course, the bridge illo which was borrowed
from the Star Trek magazine). I have yet to look at GURPS Goblins, but
I'll be sure to check that out right away. My other inspirations were
Vampire Dark Ages, and the Shadowrun redesign for their 3rd Edition, as
well as Dream Pod 9's Tribe 8 books.
> However, I don't feel this way about the Players Handbook at all.
>None of the elements hang together to me to evoke anything in particular.
>Certainly I don't instantly get a feel for a fantasy movie or novel.
>Of course, content is a big part of this. The PH is a dense pack of
>almost pure rules mechanics with almost no "flavor" material, unlike
>say GURPS Goblins. Typography and layout should serve function. As
>an almost-pure mechanics reference, the layout should help this.
I find it interesting that you feel the elments don't hang together. I
started with the idea of an old book, perhaps an old magical book, with
pages made of old parchment, but bound together by these rusted metal
frames (I'm sure that would turn out to be a very heavy book indeed).
All the elements go to reinforce that ideal. The inculabula style lines
running under the text, the large drop caps, the ironwork spears that
hold the page numbers together. The pages at the back of the first
printing (the Y2K survival manual) are a further exploration of this,
where the metal border has disappeared, but the pages are still held
down by iron spears. Again, you can't please all the people all the
time, but I do feel the book looks like what it is supposed to. A
creepy, slightly menacing magical tome, that is ages old.
>1) This is in part a personal peeve, but I hate it when illustrations
> are placed so that the text has to raggedly dodge around it -- or
> worse the illustration actually splashes onto the text like the
> lightning bolt on PH pages 80-81. The PH doesn't have a lot of
> illustrations (may 1 per 8 pages), but all of them are in this
> style. It also means that the pictures have no background.
Originally, the illustrations were to interact more with the pages
themselves, but this became impractical from a production point of view.
Some of the images are wrapped far too tight, but for the most part, I
feel they interrupt the dense text to give the reader a little break
from all that grey (the type... since designers don't read, we just call
that grey stuff... hehe). Some people hate this. Some people hate
justified type (I love justified type), so again, all the people all the
time, yadda yadda. Sorry you didn't like it.
>2) Re: the pseudo-hand-drawn lines below each line of text that fade
> in and out. These don't hurt readability, but they certainly don't
> help it. Moreover, their use for tables makes some tables harder
> to use than in, say, 2nd ed AD&D, which uses gray shading. For
> example, I want to see what spells per day a 12th level wizard has.
> There is a line under 12 which goes to the next column, but it
> fades out three times before getting to the spells.
>
> I realize that this was probably a deliberate design decision
> to make the layout look less "mechanical". However, frankly, the
> book *is* nearly pure mechanics, and it shoudl be designed so that
> you can quickly flip to find the rule you want to know.
Because of the metaphor of an old book, we didn't want all the tables to
be ruled out with mechanical grey bars. It's boring, and it's not "in
character" for the book. The guide lines work much better. I feel they
improve readability of the charts, and give a little something no one
had done before to the books. Just as side note here, I play (well, I
DM) a group every Wednesday, so I give my books quite a work out. I knew
in designing these books that I'd be using them too, so they'd better
work, or I'd be really irritated.
>3) The chapters start with odd pencil drawings which are of fantasy
> subjects but done in a modern-day style. For example, PH Chapter 2
> starts with "Racial Chart Study C" with "Fig. A", "Fig. B", and
> so forth. The Chapter 8 starts with handwritten comments like
> "The deltoid, shown here in the anterior surrounds the targetted
> shoulder joint." Is this supposed to be a subtle comment on the
> anachronisms common to AD&D games? I don't get it.
The chapter starts were originally going to be two pages of nothing but
illustration. My concept was to have some illo, done in a more loose
style, showing off the chapter's contents. For instance, on the classes
chapter, we wanted to have a Paladin, slumped down on the field of
battle, surrounded by the dead, his spirit crushed, having cast off his
helm, and thrown down his sword. Something moody. Both space and money
constraints got in the way, so we reconcepted. Since this could be a
wizard's spell book, we had drawings that reflected the type of notes a
wizard might make. Of course there are ananchronisms. It's just a game.
Although in hindsight, I think we should have made them mumbo-jumbo
instead.
>
>4) There are several features, starting with the cover, which attempt
> to give the feel of an old hand-written tome. (The line rules which
> fade in and out, the shading at the edges of the pages.) However,
> this is at odds with the text which is always written to the player
> with no flavor stories or material from the point-of-view of the
> characters.
Well, that you'll have to take up with the R&D guys. I believe the
reasoning for that was to avoid the pretenscious feeling that Vampire &
other WW games give with their flavor text. Also, it saves space by
eliminating that, so you get more rules for your buck. Would you really
want to lose the rules for sleeping in armor just so you can read some
trite stuff about a fighter's first encounter with a succubi? Okay, well
maybe you'd want to read that... hmm...
>5) The PH has color borders so that the tab-like chapter and page
> numbering are visible from the side. This could have been used to
> make it easier to flip directly to a chapter, by having the chapter
> tabs in descending position and/or different colors. However, this
> was not done.
This is an oversight. Dawn, the art director, and me, didn't agree about
this. The R&D team requested colored tabs, we didn't want to do 11 or 15
or more colored tabs, so we wanted to divide it into bigger sections,
but that couldn't be agreeed on. In the end, we ended up with 1 color,
gold. I would still prefer that we used colors. But, c'est la vie.
>
> For that matter, it isn't clear to me what the colorful marbled
> border of each page is supposed to be. It doesn't seem to me to
> evoke anything in particular -- just a sort of generic fanciness.
> It doesn't even seem to support the half-hearted "old tome" feel.
> Contrast this to, say, _GURPS Goblins_ where the header and footer
> directly evoke the feel and content of the game.
It's supposed to be rusted metal. Well, not supposed to be, it actually
is rusted metal, photographed, and then pieced together. I think I
pretty much explained the reasoning behind it up above.
Well, as I said to begin with, I think these criticisms are really well
thought out. I don't think the PHB is perfect, but I am happy with it.
Dawn did a great job commisioning the art, and the illustrators did a
great job defining the new look for 3E, and all in all it was a very
successful product. I just wish we had changed the color & texture of
the interiors between the three books.... but again, you can't please
all the the people all of the time, even me, the graphic designer.
--
Sean Glenn
Brett Slocum
>The noble slo...@skypoint.com (Brett Slocum) spake on the day of Sat, 02
>Dec 2000 04:27:49 GMT:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:44:17 GMT, agri...@yahoo.com (Iron Czar) wrote:
>
>>I did print it out and the font is *way* too small. *Nothing* should be
>>professionally published with less than 10 point font, except for disclaimers
>>and such minor uses. A whole page of 8 point font will give your customers (what
>>few you have left) a major headache.
>>
>>The last thing C&S needs is another unreadable microscopic font. (Yes, I cut my
>>teeth on C&S 1, but I also needed glasses before I was done).
>
>I should point out that the *Professionally* printed version is larger
>than the PDF when printed and sharper than it appears on my poor old
>inkjet.
Oh, I understand better sharpness. I wasn't complaining about that. I think I'm
pretty good at interpreting what I see in inkjet and guessing what the real
thing looks like. I wonder about your comment about 8 point font being larger in
a professionally printed item. I thought that point size was a absolute
measurement, not a relative one, so that 8 point was 8 point was 8 point... So,
you are saying that the meaning of 8 point changes depending on who is printing
it? That doesn't make much sense.
ed
Dec 2000 16:35:51 GMT:
>>I should point out that the *Professionally* printed version is larger
>>than the PDF when printed and sharper than it appears on my poor old
>>inkjet.
>
>Oh, I understand better sharpness. I wasn't complaining about that. I think I'm
>pretty good at interpreting what I see in inkjet and guessing what the real
>thing looks like. I wonder about your comment about 8 point font being larger in
>a professionally printed item. I thought that point size was a absolute
>measurement, not a relative one, so that 8 point was 8 point was 8 point... So,
>you are saying that the meaning of 8 point changes depending on who is printing
>it? That doesn't make much sense.
It does when you realise that PDF is a vector format and the page that I
print out for is not the same as your page size. A PDF set to print for
A4 will print on a US Letter but it will print, but be slightly
distorted.ed
Sea Wasp
> I find it interesting that you feel the elments don't hang together. I
> started with the idea of an old book, perhaps an old magical book, with
> pages made of old parchment, but bound together by these rusted metal
> frames (I'm sure that would turn out to be a very heavy book indeed).
> All the elements go to reinforce that ideal. The inculabula style lines
> running under the text, the large drop caps, the ironwork spears that
> hold the page numbers together. The pages at the back of the first
> printing (the Y2K survival manual) are a further exploration of this,
> where the metal border has disappeared, but the pages are still held
> down by iron spears. Again, you can't please all the people all the
> time, but I do feel the book looks like what it is supposed to. A
> creepy, slightly menacing magical tome, that is ages old.
It does, to some extent, and to that extent it accomplishes what you
set out to do.
However, for my purposes -- a GM and Player -- it fails to accomplish
anything except waste my time. I want... information. Fancy drawings
don't give me information. Drawings relevant to the subject at hand do
(no, not "Look here's Mialee nuking herself with a scroll"; more like
"Here's the layout of Mialee's lab where she is now making a scroll").
Funky lines across the page, no, not really. The background should
contrast as much as possible with the text; that's why most paper is,
well, WHITE, and the usual printing ink is, um, BLACK. The darker the
background, the harder the text is to read. As previously noted, the
illustrations cause text to move inconveniently (and whoever chose the
methodology for continuing text from one subject to another deserves to
be staked out on an anthill; the number of times I've been reading a
spell or character class description in the PH or DMG and found myself
saying "what the hell are they talking about... oh, jeez, this isn't
even the same thing I was just reading!" doesn't bear thinking about).
Old tomes were hard to read; that association isn't a good one to keep,
and in some ways your layout reinforces that stereotype. It's
idiosyncratic, a Rilly Kewl Idea, Doodz, that looks really nice but
doesn't add nearly enough to the experience of the book. I'd prefer a
nice illustration on the cover, more straightforward layout of data
cross-referenced extensively, and illustrations that are utilitarian --
that serve a direct purpose. This is a reference work, not an artwork.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Michael T. Richter
>> I also quote Michael T. Richter in his review of C&S Light, laid out
>> with the same rules by the same people.
>> "C&SL is almost, but not quite, completely unlike C&S3 in this regard.
>> Its layout is crisp and clean. Whitespace is used to block the text into
>> related concepts. Fonts are properly used for emphasis (bold, italic)
>> and for section headings (different fonts). Reasonably good stock art is
>> used to help fill blank spaces caused by proper layout. Examples are
>> distinguished from surrounding text by placing them into sidebars and
>> shading the sidebars grey."
> This says to me not that you've done a fine job of typography; rather,
> it tells me that C&S3 made even *worse* mistakes. In other words, the
> typography in C&S3 was poor; in C&S4, it is serviceable. The egregious
> mistakes are gone.
Note also that I commended the layout. Typography is well outside my sphere
of expertise and, further, I have never seen the problems so many people
have with specific fonts outside of the novelty ones. I can read reams and
reams and reams of documentation printed in 8-point Arial or Helvetica
without any difficulty whatsoever. And I find Times Roman to be no
better -- nor worse -- in that regard.
In my review I concentrated on layout issues and only commented that the
really bad typography (unreadable, mixed fonts) was gone.
Iron Czar
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>slo...@skypoint.com (Brett Slocum) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:44:17 GMT, agri...@yahoo.com (Iron Czar) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 23:08:54 +0000, ed <edh...@equus.demon.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi there
>>>>
>>>>Since there has been some discussion as to how readable C&S 4's 8 point
>>>>Arial might be BGD has put a PDF sample of a page up on its website.
>>>>
>>>>You can download it from the BGD website
>>>>http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk and look for the C&S 4 sample link, or
>>>>alternately grab it direct from
>>>>
>>>>http://www.britgamedesigns.co.uk/download/cns4samp.pdf
>>>
>>>It looks good to me on my screen--I did not print it out. Personally,
>>>I *prefer* sans serif typefaces, but this is generally held to be a
>>>minority view.
>>
>>I did print it out and the font is *way* too small. *Nothing* should be
>>professionally published with less than 10 point font, except for disclaimers
>>and such minor uses. A whole page of 8 point font will give your customers (what
>>few you have left) a major headache.
>>
>>The last thing C&S needs is another unreadable microscopic font. (Yes, I cut my
>>teeth on C&S 1, but I also needed glasses before I was done).
>>
>The alternative, unfortunately, is either a $50 game, or an incomplete game.
>Both of which also product vitriolic responses. IMO, they mad the right
>choice. YMMV.
All avenues considered, I must agree. Small typefaces don't bother me
particularly, except in really extreme cases (the sidebars in my copy
of Ysgarth, for example.) Even C&S 1 didn't bug me too much.
At the other end of the spectrum is 7th Sea, which uses something like
a 14 point typeface. Add in lots of lousy, space-wasting
illustrations and you get a 128 page book padded out to 2 $30
hardcovers, and the game is *still* not complete. No thanks.
Assuming that the page count, number and size of illustrations, and
price are constants, would you rather have *less* game with larger
type or more game with smaller type?
Seems pretty clear to me.
Iron Czar
John Kim
This is another reply to Sean Glenn concerning the D&D3 layout
which he did. I think we've covered the specific criticisms I gave in
the last article. I think there is a more general topic which is
behind these, though.
I would mention again that I don't think that it is bad layout;
just that I wanted to add some criticism to the points mentioned before.
Sean Glenn <sean...@mac.com> wrote:
>I find it interesting that you feel the elments don't hang together.
[...]
>Again, you can't please all the people all the time, but I do feel the
>book looks like what it is supposed to. A creepy, slightly menacing
>magical tome, that is ages old.
I was thinking about elements which go beyond this. That is,
it might look like a menacing magical tome from the cover and borders,
but as soon as I read any of the text it instantly clashes with that.
i.e. The layout chosen doesn't actually hang together with how the text
of the book is written.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) wrote:
>>4) There are several features, starting with the cover, which attempt
>> to give the feel of an old hand-written tome. (The line rules which
>> fade in and out, the shading at the edges of the pages.) However,
>> this is at odds with the text which is always written to the player
>> with no flavor stories or material from the point-of-view of the
>> characters.
>
>Well, that you'll have to take up with the R&D guys. I believe the
>reasoning for that was to avoid the pretenscious feeling that Vampire &
>other WW games give with their flavor text. Also, it saves space by
>eliminating that, so you get more rules for your buck. Would you really
>want to lose the rules for sleeping in armor just so you can read some
>trite stuff about a fighter's first encounter with a succubi?
It is not so much that I definitely want flavor text as that
I think that form should follow function. If the book doesn't actually
have any flavor material, then I think that trying to lay it out as an
old mystic tome isn't the best choice. If it is a mechanics reference
manual, it should be laid out as such. If it had more flavor text,
then the style of the layout should match it. For example:
A] If you keep the content as is, then change the layout to be more of
a reference book. The colored descending chapter tabs we talked
about before would have been great. Also, big chapter and subtopic
at the top corner the page would have been useful. That way you could
flip thru the spells instantly seeing where you are (i.e. a big
"Spells: W" in the upper corner). Further, having the index be at
the very end, so you don't have to flip back thru the appendix and
credits to get to it. Lastly shade the table rows - at least for
the big many-column tables like the skill chart.
B] Alter the choice of content so that there is more flavorful material.
Note that this does not mean taking the same stuff and adding filler
just for the sake of having it -- it means changing the focus of the
book some. For example, I think something close to the PH layout could
be absolutely terrific for _Ars Magica_, which is about medieval
magi who pore over ancient tomes. The sketches could have notes in
real Latin, say, and other touches.
The point is that if the content of the book isn't actually
meant to convey flavor, then the focus of the layout shouldn't be on
trying to make it creepy and flavorful. Note that this is an esthetic
argument from my point-of-view, not neccessarily a commercial one.
I will easily concede that the style in question may have helped to
sell it.
John Kim
Jason Corley <cor...@cobweb.scarymonsters.net> wrote:
>John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>> I realize that this was probably a deliberate design decision
>> to make the layout look less "mechanical". However, frankly, the
>> book *is* nearly pure mechanics, and it shoudl be designed so that
>> you can quickly flip to find the rule you want to know.
>
>My own pet peeve: "Flavor text" has always bothered me, and the more
>prevalent it's become (fiction introductions and so forth), the more it
>bothers me. I always feel like I'm looking over the shoulder of another GM
>at their game (and I've nearly always thought that it's a cruddy GM and a
>lousy game.) A mechanics-heavy book like D&D3 PG makes me /happy/.
First of all, note that I did *not* say that the PH should have
had flavor text -- just that the layout should reflect the content.
While I agree that there is lots of bad flavor text in RPG's, frankly
there is also lots of bad mechanics and bad illustrations. In my
mind, good examples of flavor text include products like _Paranoia_,
_Delta Green_, _Ars Magica_ (4th ed - Atlas Games), along with
_Tribe 8_, _Castle Falkenstein_, and _Aberrant_.
The latter 3 are alike in that flavor text is a primary
way they convey their world. A lot of the WW games have pretty
execrable flavor text, but at least in _Aberrant_ the 100 pages of
flavor text really does convey the world in detail. My objection in
this case would be the lack of organization.
AM4 starts with a short story, but IMO it served a real purpose.
One of my objections to previous AM editions was that they encouraged
an anachronistic, scientific worldview. The story here works as an
overview of a magus' life from a more medieval worldview. _Delta Green_
and _Paranoia_ are just plain good, in very different ways of course.
The common feature here is that the flavor text isn't just
tacked on, it is a thought-out part of the game. _Paranoia_ without
the public service announcements and amusing vignettes would be
awful, IMO. There are a lot more examples of good flavor, I think,
but the bad usage probably sticks in one's mind more.